Putting Google’s business model at risk by forcing publishers to collect fees, makes the long term outcome of the new Spanish Google-tax highly unpredictable.

Network effects

On January 01, 2015 a new Spanish law comes into effect forcing search engines and third party news aggregates to compensate publishers for linking to their content. The new law, directed primarily at Google is often dubbed the Google tax, so mid December it pulled the plug on its Spanish News service, citing the service did not make any money and therefore it was unreasonable to ask for compensation. In 2008 Marissa Mayer claimed Google News was worth $100 million. Google is a business that wants to make money, not a charity so the service itself does not need to make any money to be valuable as long as it generates traffic for other parts of Google that sell advertisements. The service also increases brand awareness and creates goodwill which Google highly values. Without it, revenues from Google’s other services would probably be lower and leave more room for competition.

Been there done that

There have been several unsuccessful previous attempts to make Google pay for linking to publishers contents in Belgium and Germany but the new Spanish law is different because it makes it mandatory for publishers to collect fees from Google, creating a level playing field of sorts. Publishers worldwide can opt out from being indexed by Google News but for an individual publisher this amounts to suicide, Google will serve users the same information by providing a link to the story written by another newspaper.
Google’s dominant position is a near-monopoly, which allows it to pull its Spanish news service, knowing very well the pain it inflicts on Spanish publications. The only thing it has to do is sit it out. Were there ten competing news services it would not have this luxury and sharing the profits from linking to news stories would have become common practice years ago. Spanish publishers know they are cornered and in their desperation now have turned to a novel and bizarre idea by asking the government and the EU to force Google to keep its news service open. In doing so the publishers admit the old model where people read one newspaper is no more, just like people buying individual music tracks rather than full albums. No matter how the new law works out, publishers better hurry and start thinking how to adapt to this new reality where people consume snippets of news from multiple source. Building another news app for you paper probably won’t do it unless you enjoy the prestige of the New York Times. Engaging in a race to the bottom, writing infotainment stories not even worthy of the term pulp, rather than news people want to read and pay for, did not help either. In many European countries publishers have long enjoyed a sheltered existence because the local language served as a barrier to entry. They carved up the market among them and did not innovate. That era is over.

Staring contest?

The new law is a frontal assault on the fundamentals of Google’s business model and Google will never give in because once it does, other countries will follow and before you know it, governments, always desperate for other people’s cash, will start to tax other Google services. But what if the Spanish government does not give in either and a staring contest begins or even worse get the law implemented throughout the European Union to adopt the law?

Governments are justifiably worried about the decline of their newspaper industry. Forcing the right to be forgotten upon Google perhaps emboldened the Spanish government to take the next step. If a vacuum exists for long enough, somebody will step in. As long as the Spanish government is willing to let its newspapers suffer for a while by denying them access to Google News, there is a chance that some start-up will fill the gap, preferably a home grown one. This law is different, it is compulsory for all Spanish publishers, there is no opt in or opt out. Maybe the Spanish government is not as naive as people claim and is prepared to sacrifice some publishers to claim another victory over Google, a lifetime achievement for any politician. What politician doesn’t dream of bending the almighty Google to his or her will? Until that happens Spanish newsreaders will still be able to read the news, with a bit of extra effort.

Not everything is what it seems

Google is a near-monopolist whose vast power until now have allowed it to dictate terms and giving it a huge edge over its business partners. In no other part of the economy can a company apply its leverage to create a situation where using another company’s intellectual property for free is the best outcome the copyright owner can hope for. That is just one of the reasons the assaults on Google will continue and at some point some law or start-up will begin breaking the strangle hold of Google. That is the greatest threat to Google. It is not just the Spanish publishers who are under attack, Google is too. In the end it does not matter who wins, we consumers will pay for it, the only question is who gets our advertising euro’s.

In a rather curious article Nieman Lab wonders why users do not like Context, Evernote’s new research feature. Hidden in the article lies the answer. Context is advertising cleverly disguised as generic search results.

Evernote is an app for digital note taking, that synchronizes itself between your various gadgets. For most people Evernote is a product you either love or hate. I do not like it, but use it for my Saturday shopping list because it synchronizes without hassle between my pc and mobile phone and I am too lazy to look for an alternative.

Chaos and data insecurity

Distractions seems to be Evernote’s unique selling point. The app’s interface on my phone differs from the one on my desktop but both are equally chaotic. The dominant colour is bright – in your face – green, most likely designed to keep your eyes away from your notes. The various areas and buttons feel random, making sure you never find what you need where you expect it. The coup de

All of that would be acceptable if the app gave you full control over your information. Unfortunately the software does the exact opposite, which is unacceptable. It has a lot of built in intelligence doing all kinds of smart things you neither want nor need, but are unable to understand or turn off. It rather annoying by default automatically copies from your clipboard, adds all kinds of unwanted data if you do a manual copy paste and is an overall nightmare. I simply do not trust it with sensitive information.

Reinventing the wheel

Evernote also has a premium version without adds for which they now have developed a research tool called Context. Read the newspaper and stumble upon advertisements, thinly disguised as partner content. In a way the research suggestions are partner content from publishers who signed up with Evernote to promote their content. Basically what Evernote has done is create a search engine a la Google, the difference being that some content is available from behind a pay wall you cannot access through a search engine. That advantage quickly disappears once you realize that access to a few newspaper archives is no match for all the information out there on the internet. Add to that the fact that suggestions are backward looking – based on what you type – rather than what you want to know. Not surprisingly many users compare the new feature to an advertisement, which, of course, it is. Without realising Evernote basically admits as much:

“Unfortunately, ads take so many forms these days there’s no way to design a space that could not be perceived as an ad,”

The word perceived may tell more about the companies intentions than it would like to. Context was added to Evernote without the ability to turn the feature off, a quality it shares with most advertising. In what reads like partner content Nieman Lab pitches the product. Publishers get access to and audience that is otherwise hard to reach and the near geniuses at Evernote optimize the user experience bringing it to dizzying new heights.

“For publishers, Context is a unique, if niche, way to get their content in front of engaged, professional eyeballs. What Evernote hopes to offer those users attached to those eyeballs is a productive, predictive way to work the likes of which they’ve never experienced before.”

Yet in its subtitle the author started out wondering why people do not like it. Perhaps because it is superfluous feature that does not deliver. A search engine is still the most effective way if you are looking for information. Many business users, for instance bankers, have lots of paid databases at their disposal with all kinds of information. You can only add so many bells and whistles to a program before it looses all sense of direction, a risk not uncommon to journalism either.

Looking for a new word processor I searched the internet only to find one of the worst articles ever written courtesy of tech website Mashable.

Share baby. Share!

Like many people I am fed up with Word, Microsoft’s bloated word processor. It has too many features and is becoming increasingly expensive. I briefly switched to Libre Office, no more than a buggy copy of an old version of Word, but the program is too slow. What I need is something simpler that helps me focus on writing but also can do a bit of basic lay-out. Searching for alternatives I stumbled upon an article from last year published on tech website Mashable about “The 5 Best Free Word Processors” which sounded promising but turned out to be one of the worst articles I have ever read. Commenters on the Mashable website felt the same.

Bite Size Click Bait

After reading the lavishly illustrated “bite size” article it felt more like click bait. “Five things to…” is classic listicle format to lure readers when you have nothing to say. Most of us are looking for actual information dear author. Not in the least bit humbled by her lack of knowledge the author encourages us to “check out the best of the best below” which makes me wonder what qualifies her as an expert on word processors?
The top 5: Google Docs; Textilus – Microsoft Word edition; Text Edit; Kingsoft Office Writer and Pages reads like a random list. Google Docs on top makes it look like a sponsored piece of writing. Not only does Google Docs require an internet connection, the author also encourages us to “look into the Drive’s many other apps.” Unwanted freebies when I was simply looking for a Word replacement. Browsing the list makes me wonder what criteria, other than what pops up in a random Google search, are applied, Operation system of what you want to use the word processor for definitely were not criteria.
Of course the author and I both know this article is not about the content or some giving some serious advice. It is about the “Mashable Velocity Graph which shows how quickly people are sharing this article on the social web.” How do you come up with that stuff? Silly me, I thought content was king, but sharing is. Then again it is always good to see people paint themselves into a corner by sharing stuff they did not actually read.

How then

First and foremost mention which platform each program runs on. The word Apple gets me as a Windowy confused. Also you should make a distinction between online editors and off-line editors. Offline is very important to some of us. Does Google by any chance pays to be included in this list? Your suggestion to “be sure to look into the Drive’s many other apps“: at least points in that direction. To add insult to injury one of the comments points out that Textilus is not free.
If you want to select the five best free word processors how about acknowledging that best means different things to different people. Are you looking for something that is more about distraction free writing or has Word become too bloated and you want to switch. Create categories and come up with appropriate criteria. Then compare the programs and rank them. People do not have to agree with you but at least they understand why.

This is one of those days I am proud to use and add blocker. Mashable should not make a single cent of this article.

Idris Elba’s award-winning detective Luther, a near-genius murder detective whose brilliant mind can’t always save him from the dangerous violence of his passions is returning for two special episodes in 2015, the BBC has announced.

Unlike all those people who do not watch television, I actually do. Big fan of Doctor Who, who like Sherlock, that other Steven Moffat show, combines fantastic episodes with terrible ones. My favourite show is Luther, a brilliant Detective Chief Investigator, completely obsessed with his work. Not a happy fellow by nature, the London he lives in is dark and drab and the crimes bringing out the darkest of human nature do not help either.

Alice, his companion, is a psychopath, sociopath and genius, She is the cold as ice, dark scary version of Rose, Charlie Harper’s stalker in the American sitcom Two And A Half Men. Luther knows Alice murdered her parents but has never been able to prove it. Despite that they grow closer, Alice’ feelings for John Luther make her a bit more human, until is it time to kill again turning her into Luther’s avenging guardian angel. The last episodes ends with the two of them walking into the distance together.

In typical BBC on and off format the show ran for three seasons (2010, 2011 and 2013) and rather unexpectedly today the BBC announced Luther will return in 2015 for two episodes. What makes Luther stand out besides the acting of Idris Elba and bizarre crimes his character has to solve, is the show’s dark and devious undertone contrasts sharply with Sherlock’s happy peppy kind of crime solving.

Facebook has an innovation problem for which it compensates by “over-innovation” of existing products. That strategy backfires, hurting the company’s reputation, making it hard to expand into business software with its recently announced Facebook@Work, a tool for messaging and collaboration,

The company is successful because of its first mover advantage, networking effects and the backing of Silicon Valley’s venture capital community. Somebody had to create a global digital community after the novelty of the internet wore of. It turned out to be Mark Zuckerberg, but what qualifies Facebook to make the same inroads in other areas? It is just one of many companies trying to influence and predict what the future will look like, but changes often come from a direction nobody expects. That is why established companies buy start-ups when they miss a trend. Unfortunately it is often done without a clear sense of direction or good fit with the overall strategy.

We have to do something. Anything!

Facebook’s problem is over-innovation. Just take Whatsapp. It is huge in Europe. Nobody texts any more. Facebook paid 19 billion for it. Other than a pre-emptive strike to keep Whatsapp out of the hands of its competitors at any price that is a lot of money Mr Zuckerberg spent without a clear idea of how to recoup it.

When management is cornered there is always that burning desire to do something, anything, it does not matter what (other than think harder). For Mark Zuckerberg being so succesful at a young age that pressure is many times of what other CEO’s experience. He has to prove he is not a one hit wonder. His legacy is already at stake.

Often doing something means tweaking an existing product. That feels good. At least you have done something. Unfortunately “doing something” often means a step back from the user’s perspective. Extra bells and whistles, just for the extra bells and whistles, may make management feel like they tried but what they really did is annoy users by complicating and cluttering a product with unwanted or even outright annoying features. The original Whatsapp is a point in case. It is a good product, not to complicated, people love it and it works well. A few days ago in true Facebook style, its engineers pushed the blue ticks, probably to see what happened. People did not like it so they partially reversed it. At least management did something but at a cost. Those annoying minor “upgrades” do not add value nor do they help Facebook make money of its investment. The real risk is people switching apps in a heartbeat. Especially young people are not exactly known to be a captive audience.
Perhaps their experience in pushing the boundaries of of privacy – try first ask later – let them to believe this strategy might work. Changing the small print does not change the user experience but bells and whistles do.

Daddy CEO

Now move on to that CEO in the market for some new communication system. While reading an ugly letter from some vulture capitalist complaining about his companies’ under performing share price, his daughter sends him a picture using Whatsapp. A cute kitten, can she adopt her? “Please daddy, please.” He reads the message and the ticks turn blue so his daughter knows he read it. Nine year olds are not known for their patience. Daddy read my message 10 minutes ago but he doesn’t answer, nor does he in 30 minutes. After an hour the bomb bursts. “You do not love me daddy, you do not answer me. Why can I not have that kitten, she is so sweet. I’ll name her after grandma.”
She uses all the tricks in the book and finally daddy types back “OK”, just to have some peace and quiet. The next day he reads how Whatsapp partially reverses those blue ticks and he gets cross. Not much of a cat lover, a bit allergic to those fury hairballs, he regrets his decision for a long time to come, all because of Facebook had a hit and miss.

Out of its league

IT software in a corporate environment is very different from a free app or Facebook account. Software implementation in large companies run often over budget, are high risk and they are complicated projects, whole graveyards are filled with managers who fell on their sword promising to deliver the impossible. Switching costs are high so basically you buy yourself a ball and chain. Facebook’s reputation for “see what happens, we can always roll it back” will make it a hard sell to convince businesses to use their product. Facebook needs to start focussing on customer needs rather than its own. The company misses a proven track record to convince corporations to use its messaging tool.
In the post Edward Snowden era corporate security has become a major factor in decision making. For non-US companies buying IT systems from an American company bound by numerous known and unknown laws to hand over information is a risk. not only for Facebook, but all American companies. That will add to the challenge as well.

Perhaps taking a clue from the Google play book, Facebook should bring in an external CEO to guide Facebook through its next growth phase, redesigning its reputation while Mark Zuckerberg redesigns his wardrobe, starting with shedding his hoodie.

Bloomberg columnist Katie Brenner wonders “what happens when you’re pushed out of the tech startup club”, but Uber, a smartphone app to order a taxi, is just another 21th century company.

Is Uber a tech startup or is it a company that acts as intermediary between passengers and drivers, using custom software to take their ideas from the drawing board to their users? Software these days is just another tool for business. Just because Uber (kind of) created a hype around its product does not make it special. Barriers to entry are pretty low, Uber’s vicious attacks on competitor Lyft illustrate just that. What if Uber wasn’t an app for taxi’s but restaurants? Would that generate the same kind of publicity and valuation or is it the underlying mall-functioning taxi market that causes it? Don’t believe the hype, it is a bubble.